Thoughts on Psychoanalysis

My guess is that Bullshido tends to have a crowd that perhaps needs therapy but doesn't actually pursue therapy (hey, I fit into that category and I'm a therapist).

Anyway, I'm tired of debating therapy crap with other graduate students. You might be aware that there are lots of different types of "psychotherapy," the two dominant broad categories in the US currently being PSYCHOANALYSIS where you explore your inner world to gain insight into things that drive you and COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORAL THERAPY, where you complete specific exercises in order to reduce symptoms.

I'm aware that this sort of thread might be a stupid train-wreck here, but **** it, I want to see what happens.

What are the prevailing Bully opinions on psychotherapy in general, and the relative merits of psychoanalysis specifically?

If anyone is interested in some current thinking on this the journal AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST published a pretty good argument in 2010 by an analyst named Shedler.

Last edited by lordbd; 6/10/2012 8:58am at .
Reason: wanted to add a good reference

as a psych student i can't help feel that psychoanalysis and freud in general is a load of choff

but saying psycho analysis is widely used is grossly over exaggerated is it not? i can't remember the last time I heard of someone taking a rorshach to see why they are depressed,or doing one of those projective "what is the man in the picture thinking" tests

as a psych student i can't help feel that psychoanalysis and freud in general is a load of choff

but saying psycho analysis is widely used is grossly over exaggerated is it not? i can't remember the last time I heard of someone taking a rorshach to see why they are depressed,or doing one of those projective "what is the man in the picture thinking" tests

Psychoanalytic approaches are still pretty widely used, and most internship sites if you're applying for an APA accredited internship still list that they want ppl with some experience with projective tests. These approaches are even more popular in Europe than they are in the US. I can't speak to what it is like in Canada, but I do know that there are a fair number of object-relations writers from Canada. Even some of the US Military internship sites still require you to carry 1 or 2 long-term psychodynamic cases as part of your training.

I would note that "psychoanalysis" really means a wide range of different insight-oriented approaches and didn't freeze in time with Freud.

The question isn't really IF psychodynamic therapy can be effective at this point. It's WHY does it work and HOW to make it work better. As a primarily behavioral therapist I don't buy into the intricacies of psychoanalytic theory per se, but it certainly doesn't seem to be dead.

as a psych student i can't help feel that psychoanalysis and freud in general is a load of choff

but saying psycho analysis is widely used is grossly over exaggerated is it not? i can't remember the last time I heard of someone taking a rorshach to see why they are depressed,or doing one of those projective "what is the man in the picture thinking" tests

As usual, you're full of wrong.

Projective tests are still used a great deal in research psychology, specifically industrial-organizational (I/O), social and personality psychology. It could also be used in a clinical setting but mainly in one where self-report cannot be trusted. Any facility that handles people who don't want to be there, such as secure mental facilities or any hospital with a psych observation ward. Rorschach tests have fallen by the wayside, but your "man in the picture" tests are still used. Mainly this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_Apperception_Test

Sure, you can game the test... but that still gives the psychologist information.

As for psychoanalysis... first of all you have to view Freud through the lens of his times. There were not sophisticated statistical models or a load of research to fall back on. He was working from his own experience and, as you should know: The plural of anecdote is not evidence. Many current theories of development are, however, still loosely based on Freud. (Piaget, Erikson, Bowlby) He was also the first influential figure who posited the idea of the unconscious, which presents itself in nearly every sub-discipline of psychology in a number of different forms.

From a clinical perspective, psychoanalysis is not without merit. If I recall correctly there are several disorders which psychoanalysis seems to benefit more than other types of therapy. (OCD and other obsessions chief among them. Again, IIRC.) However, psychoanalysis is a long (5-6 years on average) and expensive process. For most things, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is the way to go. It's results-driven, effective and is typically faster than most other types of psychotherapy. Even if it doesn't work for you, that's a whole lot less money spent on CBT than on a failed psychoanalysis.

as a psych student i can't help feel that psychoanalysis and freud in general is a load of choff

but saying psycho analysis is widely used is grossly over exaggerated is it not? i can't remember the last time I heard of someone taking a rorshach to see why they are depressed,or doing one of those projective "what is the man in the picture thinking" tests

Dude, seriously? Please tell me you're still just an idealistic first year student and not some fucking idiot regurgitating what he believes his professor is saying.

I have a Master's Degree and am in the last year of my Doctoral program, preparing to apply for my clinical internship. Not currently licensed, as that is a whole separate process that occurs AFTER you get your PhD and complete internship (you can get licensed at the master's level if you are going to practice at that level).

However, I work as a therapist in a primary care clinic at a teaching hospital, and carry a few cases at a community mental health clinic.

I think it is worth noting, if this thread ends up heating up at all, that there is a pretty big difference between theory and practice when it comes to evidence for types of therapy. For example, in the Shedler article I mentioned in the OP, he makes a great argument for the effectiveness of the practice of psychodynamic approaches to therapy. That doesn't mean that all, part, of any of psychoanalytic theory is or is not accurate. Also there are really myriad analytic theories.